onigame ([info]onigame) wrote,
@ 2007-11-06 13:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
When you can't win a game...
In most games, with a reasonable amount of certainty (but not even 100%), you can say that all players are trying to win. In the case that a player isn't trying to win, players will have a secondary goal, but what that secondary goal is very uncertain and unless you know the player well, it cannot be predicted. Possibilities are:

* Trying to place as high as possible (2nd place >> 3rd place);
* Trying to attain highest possible score;
* Trying to maximize highest expected value of score;
* Trying to maximize difference between score and mean score;
* Trying to make the other players as close as possible;
* Trying to play as fast as possible;
* Trying to end the game as fast as possible;
* Trying to prolong the game as long as possible;
* Trying to make the rest of the game as simple as possible;
* Trying to make the rest of the game as chaotic as possible;
* Trying to make moves that are least likely to affect the current rankings;
* Trying to make moves that are most likely to affect the current rankings;
* Trying to make the winner be the player who has a worse winning record;
* Trying to make the most pleasing personal layout;
* Getting a specific cool-looking card in play;
* Getting "revenge" on the player that you think put you out of contention for winning;
* Trying to maximize the fun that other players are having;
* Trying to minimize the fun that other players are having;
* Trying to play as random as possible;
* Adopting a strategy from above, while making that fact dead obvious to all the other players;
* Adopting a strategy from above while hiding it from all the other players;
* Adopting a strategy from above while hiding it from all the other players, but surreptitiously dropping clues in some passive-aggressive manner that you might be playing that strategy.

I've seen all of these in games, in combination sometimes.



(Post a new comment)


[info]aarondf
2007-11-06 10:44 pm UTC (link)
This is a good list. There are even other weird variations. In the card game Wizard (Oh Hell variant), if I am horribly losing and thus in the last hand in striking distance of it, I will try to make a bid that leaves my end score at exactly 0 which is just as hard to make as a normal bid but seems a random bid to people who don't know my goal. Guess this could be a strange way of seeing "Trying to make the most pleasing personal layout".

(Reply to this)


[info]lardarsegreg
2007-11-06 11:00 pm UTC (link)
I think I've done at least half of those at one point or another. You forgot "trying to make final score as high a %age as possible of the winner's score", though.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-11-07 02:56 pm UTC (link)
This would be the same as "Trying to attain highest possible score" wouldn't it? What I like from the original list is that all the goals are slightly different, even if quite similar. For example, there is a subtle difference between "Trying to maximize difference between score and mean score" and "Trying to attain highest possible score".

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]touchstone
2007-11-06 11:04 pm UTC (link)
Add 'Adopting a strategy from above while hiding it from all the other players, but surreptitiously dropping clues in some passive-aggressive manner that you are in fact playing some OTHER strategy'. Hmm. Or is deception about your goals implied by the attempt to hide them in the first place?

(Reply to this)


[info]dougo
2007-11-06 11:13 pm UTC (link)
How about trying a new strategy that you haven't tried before, or haven't seen succeed before? But I suppose generally there you're also still trying to win, it's just an extra constraint that may lead to non-optimal moves.

(Reply to this)


[info]lahosken [ca.us]
2007-11-06 11:50 pm UTC (link)
+= "Getting a head start on the good snacks."

(Reply to this)

You left out a whole category of answer...
(Anonymous)
2007-11-07 01:15 am UTC (link)
... which is "trying to maximize the probability of winning in the future", and a number of behaviors aimed at that goal:

- using the remainder of the game as a testbed for exploring risky strategies
- scrutinizing other players, ignoring your own position
- pondering the reason for your loss, ignoring the rest of the game entirely
- using tit-for-tat diplomacy to alter other players' behavior in the future
- playing to mislead other players about your style of play
- playing to mislead other players about optimal strategy in general
- helpfully fetching alcohol for the other players

-- egnor

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: You left out a whole category of answer...
[info]zotmeister
2007-11-07 04:37 am UTC (link)
Normally, I detest irony, but in this case I think it both appropriate and incredibly satisfying to reply to this with "You win!".

As an aspiring game designer, the very concept of kingmaking has been one of my greatest targets for eradication. All players should either still truly have a chance to win - and recognize this and feel it - or have been eliminated from play. Actually, there's a third side to that story, and I've experimented with that as well... but anyhow, the point is that properly-designed games shouldn't engender this sort of topic in the first place. - ZM

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Good!!
(Anonymous)
2007-11-08 02:31 am UTC (link)
Some possibilities :
* Trying to make moves that are most likely to affect the current rankings;
* Getting "revenge" on the player that you think put you out of contention for winning;

When we play board games, we call those people "Mad Dog", and "Mad Dog" always made the game become more stimulative.

Maybe I can add some possibilities:
* Helping somebody to get higher records
* Trying to use the contradiction of the rules and makeing some special variation.
* Trying to make a research "If I made a strategy like this way?? Can I perform better??"

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-11-11 07:37 am UTC (link)
Other types of games allow more strategies.
I have experienced this with some Play-by-Mail games in which alliances can greatly shape the game. Often the rules are written so that only one player can "win", and positions may not score in exactly the same ways.

* (someone on) My Team wins (though I don't care who)
* Your Team doesn't win

And in general

* Style Points
almost unlimited, but includes something
spectacular
not seen before
almost against the spirit/style of the game (no pieces of a certain type)
a "pleasing personal layout" is just a subset of this.

Not really applicable, since alliances could win, but I heard from one Diplomacy player, that his group tried to convoy an army between the southern-most Turkish square and St. Petersburg (North) on the last turn.

Though it didn't concern not winning, one nice strategy I heard of in Disc Golf was a pair of partners choosing between their throws as the one that had landed in the shade.

Chris Worrell

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Other strategies
(Anonymous)
2007-11-19 05:53 am UTC (link)
The strategy could be to reduce the cost of continuing to play until the finish. In a race, this would mean slowing the pace - a jockey could let the horse slow down to a relaxed pace, to reduce injury; a car racer could simply maximize efficiency without risking accidents, etc.

I guess in a very rough sport, like football, the weaker players on each team may be called out (2nd string, 3rd string, etc) so that the expensive or top talent wouldn't risk injury.

A similar question could be asked when a player has a lock or near lock on winning - how might they change their behavior? To shorten the game? Run up costs for other players? Run up the score?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…